Assuming that you could prevent only one, and that the prevention of one would have no effect on the other, would you prevent the terrorist attack of eight years ago, or the election of George W. Bush in 2000?
the blog @ popjack dot net
ramblings of a mediocre genius
Your Host
-
Analytics
6It's more than this.
Honest.Powered By
oohh, good one. Logically, one can look at the deaths produced by each “event” in terms of cold numbers. Counting US soldiers, Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and so many black ops we don’t even know about, clearly Bush’s presidency killed more people than 9/11 did.
On the other hand, most–certainly not all–of those involved in the military engagements were NOT civilians, whereas, probably all the folks in the Towers/Pentagon and planes were. They were just going to work.
Aside from causalities, one has to account for all the other unconscionable acts of the Bush Crime Family–the slow deaths from cyclical poverty; lack of healthcare; the denial of basic rights to gays, people of color, women, seniors, immigrants; defrauding the American public of its right to vote; unbridled capitalism at its very worst; brutal class stratification; environmental abuse; ignoring the Constitution… I could just go on and on.
But, in the end, I really feel for the people who were just going to work that day on 9/11. They got up and went, like many of us, to jobs they probably hated. I think I would choose to prevent the attacks.
Ditto. I can understand the rational cost accounting of the massive number of deaths Bush’s policies were responsible for, but my gut sense, and my sense of ethics, too, I think, says to address the immediate and clear tragedy first.
Thanks for the comments T-bizz and El Donaldo. This is a tough one. I’ve been vacillating all day, and I still don’t know if I have a clear answer for myself.
I’m inclined to think that the terrorist attacks were a local tragedy in an international city, while the “War on Terror” has far broader implications, both in America and elsewhere. By any measure — loss of life, loss of liberty, loss of credibility, loss of the world’s respect — I believe that the War on Terror was more costly than the events that precipitated it.
With that being said, why do I intuitively agree that the terrorist attacks were worse? Is it because I saw the video so many times? Were there images hidden from me, from all Americans, that would have made me feel otherwise?
I guess I still have more questions than answers.
For me it is hard to separate the two. Bush got so much traction for his deadly policies from the events of 9/11. His presidency would not have been as potent without the fervor the attacks whipped up, and the justification they provided. Without 9/11 it is quite possible the American people would not have been hoodwinked into Irag. All that said, my reaction, my response to this question is fundamentally emotional: I’d prevent the attacks. Not primarily because preventing them might prevent the playing out of the Bush presidency (which is a logical argument), but because they were so insane, so unimaginable, that I would like to believe they could not have happened. They changed the wiring in our brains.